the doctrine of insurable interest in namibia: is it part of our law?
TRANSCRIPT
THE DOCTRINE OF INSURABLE INTEREST IN NAMIBIA: IS IT PART OF OUR LAW?
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Laws (Honours) of the University of Namibia
By
Hitjiua Tjiho Student No: 200724843
Supervisor: Ms. E. Namwoonde
“I the undersigned hereby declare that the work contained in this dissertation for the
purpose of obtaining my degree of LLB is my own original work and that I have not used
any other sources than those listed in the bibliography and quoted in the references.”
Signature:
Date:
Supervisor’s certificate: I, ______________________________hereby certify that the research and writing of
this dissertation was carried out under my supervision
Signature:
Date:
ABSTRACT
The doctrine of insurable interest originated from English law. Under English law, an
insurable interest is requirement for a valid contract of insurance. However, Roman-
Dutch law did not require that insurance contracts need to have an insurable interest.
Under Roman-Dutch law, a contract of insurance is valid regardless of whether or not
the insured has an insurable interest. Roman-Dutch law was only concerned with
whether the insured had the genuine intention to insure the subject matter of the
contract of insurance.
This dissertation argues that the doctrine of insurable interest is not part of our law.
Roman-Dutch law should be regarded as our common law of insurance. Roman-Dutch
law did not require that an insured must have an insurable interest in order to enter into
an insurance contract. Thus, the courts should only be concerned with whether or not
the insured had genuine intention to insure the goods.
This dissertation is aimed at contributing towards a legal jurisprudence in terms of which
insurers would be prevented from repudiating insurance contracts due to a lack of an
insurable interest on the part of the insured party. A legal jurisprudence in terms which
there is certainty regarding the fact that insurable interest is not part of our law would
help in avoiding or avoid or minimizing the injustice that occurs when consumers pay
insurance premiums for years only to later realize that the payment of insurance
premiums was in vain since the insurer can repudiate their insurance claim due to a lack
of insurable interest by the insured party. Thus, this dissertation tries to contribute
towards a legal climate in terms of which insurers would be prevented from repudiating
insurance claims due to a lack of insurable interest by the insured, despite the fact that
the insurer has already accepted the premiums from the insured.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction.................................……………………............……….............1
1.1 Background................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the problem...........................................................................................1
1.3 Research objectives...................................................................................................2
1.4 Significance of the Research.....................................................................................2
1.5 Literature Review.......................................................................................................3
1.6 Research questions...................................................................................................5
1.7 Research Methodology..............................................................................................5
1.8 Structure of the research paper (Chapter outline).....................................................6
Chapter 2: Nature & rationale of insurable interest.................................................. 7
2.1 Nature of the doctrine of insurable interest................................................................7
2.2 Rationale for insurable interest..................................................................................9
Chapter 3: Historical development of the doctrine of insurable interest ….......…16
Chapter 4: English law approach to insurable interest………………..................….20
Chapter 5: Roman Dutch Law approach to insurable interest………………...........24
Chapter 6: Conclusion .................................................................................…..……..28
6.1 Summary of key principles ......................................................................................28
6.2 Insurable interest does not form part of our law! .....................................................29
6.2.1 Effect of Pre-Union Statute Revision Act 43 of 1977 and other legislation..........29
6.2.2 The need for legislative intervention.....................................................................30
Bibliography.................................................................................................................27
7.1 Articles, books and journals.....................................................................................32
7.2 Table of Cases……………………………………………………………………….…...34
7.3 Table of Statutes………………………………………………………………………....36
1
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.1 Background to the problem:
An insurable interest exists if an insured party can show that they stand to lose
something of appreciable commercial value by the destruction of the insured thing.1
Furthermore, the case of Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd2,
describes insurable interest in the following terms: “man is interested in a thing to whom
advantage may attend it… having benefit in the existence of a thing, or prejudice in its
destruction”. Therefore, an insurable interest exists when an insured party will suffer a
loss if a particular property or item is destroyed or if the insured party will suffer a
diminution of any of his or her rights. An insurable interest also exists if an insured party
will gain something if a particular property or item is preserved.3
According to English Law, insurable interest is a prerequisite for all contracts of
insurance.4 However, in terms of Roman-Dutch law, an insurable interest is not a
prerequisite for a valid contract of insurance.5
1.2 Statement of the problem
Our courts have not been able to reach a consensus as to whether or not the doctrine of
insurable interest is a requirement for a valid contract of insurance. Some judges have
followed the English Law approach to insurable interest, while others have chosen to
follow the Roman-Dutch Law approach to insurable interest. In terms of English law, an
insurable interest is a requirement for a valid contract of insurance.6 However, under
Roman-Dutch law, insurable interest is not a prerequisite for a valid contract of
insurance.7
1 Littlejohn v Norwich Union Fire insurance Society 1905 TH 374 2 Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd 1983 (4) SA 652 (W) 3 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. 2006. Commercial Law Study Guide. Windhoek: Centre for External Studies, p84. 4 (ibid.). 5 Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd 1983 (4) SA 652 (W) 6 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:84). 7 Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd 1983 (4) SA 652 (W)
2
Consequently, there is a lack of consensus as to whether an insurable interest is a
requirement for a valid contract of insurance. The lack of consensus regarding the
application of the doctrine of insurable interest has resulted in a situation whereby
different judges reach differing conclusions in cases which have a similar or an identical
set of facts. Therefore, there is uncertainty as to whether or not the doctrine of insurable
interest is a requirement of our law.
1.3 Research objectives
The objectives of the dissertation include:
• The dissertation is mainly aimed at trying to determine whether the doctrine of
insurable interest is part of our law.
• Thus, the dissertation will attempt to end the current confusion on whether or not
the doctrine of insurable interest is a requirement of our law.
• Consequently, the research will mainly focus on trying to determine whether or
not Namibia should be following the English Law or Roman-Dutch Law approach
regarding whether or not insurable interest is a prerequisite for a valid contract of
insurance.
• In order to try and determine whether the English Law or Roman-Dutch Law
approach to insurable interest is part of our law in Namibia, the dissertation will
entail a discussion the various ways in which insurable interest has been applied
in our legal jurisdiction.
1.4 Significance of the research
By ascertaining whether or not the doctrine the doctrine of insurable interest is part of
our law, the research can hopefully contribute towards creating legal certainty as to
whether or not the doctrine of insurable interest is part of our law. The requirement that
an insured must have an insurable interest can result in a situation whereby an insurer
can repudiate an insurance contract and refuse to make a payout in the event that an
insured party is deemed not to have an insurable interest. If this research concludes
3
that insurable interest is part of our law, then hopefully this conclusion can also lead to
greater consumer awareness regarding the need in order to have an insurable interest
in order to prevent insurers from repudiating insurance contracts. However, if the
research concludes that the doctrine of insurable interest is not part of our law, then this
research can help contribute towards a legal jurisprudence in terms of which insurers
would be prevented from repudiating insurance contracts due to a lack of an insurable
interest on the part of the insured party.
Therefore, this research can help to protect consumers by creating certainty as to
whether or not an insurable interest is a requirement for a valid contract of insurance.
Consequently, this can help avoid or minimize the injustice that occurs when consumers
pay insurance premiums for years only to later realize that the payment of insurance
premiums was in vain since the insurer can repudiate their insurance claim due to a lack
of insurable interest by the insured party.
1.5 Literature review
An insurable interest refers to a financial or other interest that an insured person has in
the subject matter of the contract of insurance.8
The requirement for insurable interest was aimed at distinguishing a contract of
insurance from a wagering contract.9 In terms of indemnity, insurable interest is also
used as a yardstick for the determination of loss or damage by the insured party.10
Furthermore, the requirement of insurable interest is aimed at minimizing the incentive
for an insured party to destroy the insured property.11
8 Law, J., & Martin, E (Eds). 2006. Oxford Dictionary of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p 279. 9 Kosmospoulos v Constitution Insurance Co., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 2 10 Manderson t/a Hillcrest Electrical v Standard General Insurance Co Ltd 1996 (3) SA 434 (D) at 441G 11 Ndungula, D. 2001. Should insurable interest be a requirement for the validity of a life insurance contract in Namibia, an unpublished LLB Dissertation paper by a student at University of Namibia, p20.
4
Under English law, gambling and wagering used to be legally recognized and
enforceable.12 However, legislative intervention13 resulted in a situation whereby the
courts became unwilling to enforce insurance contracts which related to wagering.14
In terms of English law, insurable interest is a prerequisite for valid insurance.
Consequently, in cases such as Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors of Executors &
Trust and Assurance Co15, the court held that insurable interest is a requirement for a
valid contract of insurance. Thus, cases such as Steyn v Malmesbury Board of
Executors of Executors & Trust and Assurance Co16 have followed the English Law
approach regarding insurable interest. Therefore, in terms of English law, insurable
interest is necessary in order for there to be a valid contract of insurance.
Insurable interest became a requirement for all contracts of insurance in the Cape
Colony and the Orange Free State by virtue of Ordinance 8 of 1879 and Ordinance 5 of
1902 respectively.17
In the other provinces of South Africa such as Transvaal and Natal, insurance contracts
were governed by Roman-Dutch law.18 Roman-Dutch Law was only concerned with
whether or not the insured person had the genuine intention to insure the goods or
whether he took a gamble.19 In terms of Roman-Dutch Law, insurable interest is only
one of the factors used to determine whether the agreement amounts to a wager or
not.20 Thus, in terms of Roman-Dutch Law, an insurable interest is not a prerequisite for
a valid contract of insurance.
12 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:84). 13 For example, according to the Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act of 1909, a wagering agreement is not only void, a wagering agreement was also illegal. 14 Kosmospoulos v Constitution Insurance Co., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 2 15 Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors of Executors & Trust and Assurance Co 1921 CPD 96 16 (ibid.). 17 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011. 18 Midgeley, J. 1985. “Spouses and shareholders – insurably interested?” South African Law Journal, Volume No. 102 (Issue No 3): p467. 19 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:84). 20 Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd 1983 (4) SA 652 (W)
5
In terms of Proclamation 21 of 1919, the law applicable in the Cape of Good Hope
became applicable in South West Africa.21 Therefore, Proclamation 21 of 1919
incorporated the English doctrine of insurable interest into the law of South West
Africa/Namibia.
However, in terms of the Pre-Union Statute Revision Act 43 of 1977, the statutes that
were previously applicable in the Cape Province and the Orange Free State were
repealed.22 Hence, Roman-Dutch law became the only applicable common law of
insurance.23
1.6 Research questions
1. What is the rationale for the requirement of insurable interest?
2. What is the English Law approach regarding the doctrine of insurable interest?
3. What is the Roman Dutch Law approach regarding the doctrine of insurable
interest?
4. Does Namibia follow the English or Roman-Dutch Law approach to insurable
interest (Is the doctrine of insurable interest part of our law)?
5. If the doctrine of insurable interest is part of our law, then how did it become part
of our law (eg. Was insurable interest incorporated into our law by means of case
law, through legislation, through a treaty etc)?
1.7 Research Methodology
The determination of whether or not the doctrine of insurable interest is part of our law
will be based on documentary research of materials such as books, journals, case law,
legislation and the opinions of eminent authors.
21 Horn, N., & Bosl A (Eds). 2008. The Indepenedence of the Judiciary in Namibia. Windhoek: Macmillan Education Namibia, p45. 22 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:84). 23 Midgeley, J. (1985: 467).
6
1.8 Structure of the dissertation (chapter outline)
The dissertation will first focus on the nature, rationale and the historical development of
the doctrine of insurable interest. The research will then proceed to a discussion of the
English Law and Roman-Dutch Law approaches to insurable interest. The dissertation
will then conclude with an opinion on whether or not the doctrine is part of our law.
Therefore, the dissertation will conclude by focusing on whether Namibia should be
following the English Law or the Roman-Dutch Law approach to insurable interest.
7
CHAPTER 2: Nature of the doctrine of insurable interest & the rationale for the doctrine of insurable interest
2.1 Nature of the doctrine of insurable interest
An insurable interest refers to a financial or other interest that an insured person has in
the subject matter of the contract of insurance.24 An insurable interest is also used in
order to distinguish an insurance contract from a bet or wager.25
In terms of Refrigerated Trucking v Zive NO Aegis Joined26:
The ratio seems to be that where the relationship between the person with the legal right in the
property and the insured is such that the insured will be worse off in that, for example, he has to
forfeit a benefit or be morally responsible, or through circumstances forced, to replace the article
the court will recognise that he has an insurable interest. Insurable interest is an economic
interest which relates to the risk which a person runs in respect of a thing which is damaged or
destroyed, will cause him to suffer an economic loss or, in respect of an event, which if it happens
will cause him to suffer an economic loss. It does not matter whether he personally has rights in
respect of that article, or whether the event happens to him personally, or whether the rights are
those of someone to whom he stands in such a relationship that he has no personal rights in
respect of the article, or that the event does not affect him personally, he will nevertheless be
worse off if the object is damaged or destroyed, or the event happens.27
Furthermore, in Brightside Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Zimnat Insurance Co Ltd28, the court
stated that an insurable interest with regard to a thing does not only arise as a result of
ownership of the thing.
Therefore, ownership of a thing is not the only indicator of the existence of an insurable
interest in a thing.29 Persons can have an insurable interest in a thing despite the fact
that such person is not the owner of the thing.30
24 Law, J., & Martin, E (Eds). 2006. Oxford Dictionary of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p 279. 25 (ibid.). 26 Refrigerated Trucking v Zive NO Aegis Joined 1996 (2) SA 361 (T) 27 (ibid.). 28 Brightside Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Zimnat Insurance Co Ltd 2003 (1) SA 318 ZHC 29 Reinecke, M., & Van der Merwe, S. 1989. General Principles of Insurance. Durban: Butterworths, p84. 30 Lucena v Craufurd (1806) 2 Bos & PNR 269 (HL) 302; Brightside Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Zimnat Insurance Co Ltd 2003 (1) SA 318 ZHC
8
Lucena v Craufurd31describes insurable interest in the following terms:
A man is interested in a thing to whom advantage may arise or prejudice may happen from the
circumstances which may attend it…Interest does not necessarily imply a right to the whole or a
part of a thing, nor necessarily and exclusively that which may be the subject of privation, but the
having some relation to, or concern in the subject of the insurance which relation or concern by
the happening of the perils insured against may be so affected as to produce a damage,
detriment or prejudice to the person insuring: and where a man is so circumstanced with respect
to the matters exposed to certain risks or dangers, as to have a moral certainty of advantage or
benefit, but for those risks or dangers he may be said to be interested in the safety of the thing.
To be interested in the preservation of the thing is to be so circumstanced with respect to it as to
have benefit from its existence, prejudice from its destruction. The property of a thing and the
interest driveable from it may be different”.32
Additionally, according to Littlejohn v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society33, an
insurable interest exists if the “insured can show that he stands to lose something of
appreciable commercial value by the destruction of the thing”.34
In Brightside Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Zimnat Insurance Co Ltd35, a company had entered
into an agreement with one of its directors in terms of which the company would use a
director’s vehicle in order to carry out the business operations of the company. The
company insured the director’s vehicle.36 When the vehicle was stolen, the insurer
denied liability by claiming that the company (the insured) lacked an insurable interest in
the director’s vehicle.37 However, the court held that an insurable interest would also
exist where an insured derives a benefit from the existence of a thing.38 Thus, an
insured will have an insurable interest in a thing merely by virtue of the fact that the
insured will derive a benefit from the continued existence of the thing.39
31 (ibid.). 32 Lucena v Craufurd (1806) 2 Bos & PNR 269 (HL) 33 Littlejohn v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society 1905 TH 374. 34 (ibid.). 35 Brightside Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Zimnat Insurance Co Ltd 2003 (1) SA 318 ZHC 36 (ibid.). 37 (ibid.). 38 (ibid.). 39 (ibid.).
9
Therefore, a person has an insurable interest in a thing if they stand to derive a benefit
from the continued existence of the thing or if they stand to suffer a prejudice by the
destruction of the thing.40
Thus, an insurable interest exists when an insured will:
• suffer a loss if the subject matter of the insurance contract is destroyed;
• suffer a diminution of his rights;
• gain something from the preservation of the subject matter of the insurance
contract.41
The doctrine of insurable interest usually functions as a defense which insurers employ
in order to justify the non-payment of an insured’s claim after the materialisation of a
particular insured event.42
40 Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd 1983 (4) SA 652 (W); Brightside Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Zimnat Insurance Co Ltd 2003 (1) SA 318 ZHC 41 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:84). 42 Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors of Executors & Trust and Assurance Co 1921 CPD 96
10
2.2 The rationale behind the requirement of insurable interest
There are three policies that serve as the main justifications for the requirement of
insurable interest, these policies are:
o the policy against wagering under the guise of insurance;
o the policy favouring limitation of indemnity and
o the policy that is aimed at minimizing the incentive to destroy the insured
property.43
2.2.1 Wagering under the guise of insurance
The requirement for insurable interest was aimed at distinguishing a contract of
insurance from a wagering contract.44 Insurable interest was aimed at distinguishing
unenforceable insurance contracts from unenforceable gaming and wagering
contracts.45 A contract would be unenforceable if it is discovered that the agreement in
question amounts to a wagering agreement. 46
The requirement that an insured must have an insurable interest is a reflection of the
then prevailing public policy in favour of the non-enforcement of wagers.47 The
requirement for insurable interest was intended at preventing the use of insurance
contracts to gamble or speculate on ships and lives. English legislators were of the view
that the above-mentioned gambling and speculation could be curbed by “striking down”
insurance contracts where the insured party lacks an insurable interest in the subject
matter of the insurance.
43 Ndungula, D. (2001:16). 44 Kosmospoulos v Constitution Insurance Co., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 2 45 (ibid.). 46 (ibid.). 47 Manderson t/a Hillcrest Electrical v Standard General Insurance Co Ltd 1996 (3) SA 434 (D)
11
2.2.1 (a) Distinction between contracts of insurance and wagers
Reinecke is of the view that insurance contracts were originally regarded as a “species
of wagers”.48 Thus, Reinecke does not agree with the contention that the doctrine of
insurable interest was introduced into English law in order to distinguish wagers from
contracts of insurance.49 Instead, Reinecke contends that the concept of insurable
interest was introduced into English law in order to distinguish valid wagers from void
wagers.50
Nevertheless, today contracts of insurance are regarded as being completely distinct
from wagers.51 Whether or not the parties to the contract have an interest in the subject
matter of the contract is what determines whether or not the contract in question
amounts to a wager or an insurance contract.52 Thus, if an insured has no interest in the
subject matter of the insurance, then the contract in question should be classified as
being a wager.53
However, Midgeley argues that the view that insurable interest is aimed at
distinguishing contracts of insurance from wagers also has basis in terms of Roman-
Dutch law.54 Midgeley states that a contract will be deemed as being a wager if at the
time of concluding the contract there is no possibility that insurable interest will arise
during the subsistence of the contract.55 Thus, Midgeley contends that in terms of both
English law and Roman-Dutch law, insurable interest is aimed at distinguishing
contracts of insurance from wagers.56
48 Midgeley, J. 1985. “Spouses and shareholders – insurably interested?” South African Law Journal, Volume No. 102 (Issue No 3): p473. 49 (ibid.:472). 50 (ibid.). 51 (ibid.:473). 52 (ibid.). 53 (ibid.). 54 (ibid.:475). 55 (ibid). 56 (ibid.).
12
2.2.2 Limitation of indemnity
2.2.2 (a) Distinction between indemnity and non-indemnity insurance
There are two types of insurance contracts, namely: indemnity and non-indemnity
insurance contracts.57
Indemnity insurance
Indemnity insurance contracts are aimed at protecting patrimonial interests.58 In terms
of indemnity insurance, the insured must have an interest (financial or otherwise) in the
non-occurrence of the event that is insured against.59 In indemnity insurance, the
insurer undertakes to pay the insured for the damage which the insured might suffer if
the event that is insured against occurs.60 According to Castellain v Preston61, an
insured party can only recover to the extent to which the interest (insurable interest) is
damaged. An indemnity policy is aimed at restoring the insured to the position in which
they were prior to the loss.62 An indemnity policy does not entitle an insured party to
make a profit out of the occurrence of the event that is insured against.63 Therefore, an
insured is only entitled to the amount that they have insured for.64 Thus, in terms
indemnity insurance, an insured cannot be compensated beyond the extent that they
have suffered loss.65
57 Havenga, P., Havenga, M., Garbers, C., Meiring, I., Schulze, W., Van der Linde, K., & Van der Merwe, T. 1995. General Principles of Commercial Law. Cape Town: Juta & Co Ltd, p139. 58 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011. 59 Havenga, P., Havenga, M., Garbers, C., Meiring, I., Schulze, W., Van der Linde, K., & Van der Merwe, T. (1995:143). 60 Havenga, P., Havenga, M., Garbers, C., Meiring, I., Schulze, W., Van der Linde, K., & Van der Merwe, T. (1995:140). 61 Castellain v Preston (1883) II QBD 380 (CA) 397 62 Chronis, M. Year of publication unknown. Insurable Interest: Is it still required? Available at www.insurancegateway.co.za; last accessed on 22 October 2011. 63(ibid.) 64 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:83). 65 (ibid.).
13
The insured does not need to have an interest at the moment the contract of insurance
is concluded.66 However, according to Petreas & Co v London Guarantee and Accident
Co Ltd67:
“[a]n insurable interest must be shown to exist at the time of the loss, for, if there is no interest
then, no loss has been suffered, and the insured is not entitled to an indemnity”. Thus, an
insurable interest must exist at the time a loss occurs.68
Therefore, in indemnity insurance, the interest of the insured in the subject matter of the
contract of insurance must exist at the time the loss or prejudice is incurred.69
Non-indemnity insurance
Non-indemnity insurance contracts are aimed at protecting non-patrimonial interests.70
In non-indemnity insurance, the insurer undertakes to pay the insured a certain sum of
money if the event that is insured against occurs.71 With non-indemnity insurance, the
amount that the insurer pays to the insurer does not need to be equivalent to the
damage or amount of loss that the insured person has suffered.72
In non-indemnity insurance, the insured must have an interest in the subject matter of
the contract of insurance at the time that the contract is entered into.73 Nevertheless,
with non-indemnity insurance, an insured can be able to claim from an insurer even if
the insured party lacks an interest at the time the prejudice that was insured against
66 Havenga, P., Havenga, M., Garbers, C., Meiring, I., Schulze, W., Van der Linde, K., & Van der Merwe, T. (1995:144). . 67 Petreas & Co v London Guarantee and Accident Co Ltd 1925 AD 371 at 376 68 (ibid.). 69 Havenga, P., Havenga, M., Garbers, C., Meiring, I., Schulze, W., Van der Linde, K., & Van der Merwe, T. (1995:144). 70 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011. 71 Havenga, P., Havenga, M., Garbers, C., Meiring, I., Schulze, W., Van der Linde, K., & Van der Merwe, T. (1995:140). 72 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:83). 73 Havenga, P., Havenga, M., Garbers, C., Meiring, I., Schulze, W., Van der Linde, K., & Van der Merwe, T.(1995:144).
14
occurs.74 Therefore, in non-indemnity insurance, an insurable interest is only required at
the time that an insurance contract is entered into.75
2.2.2 (b) How the doctrine of insurable interest is aimed at limiting indemnity
In terms of indemnity, an insurer undertakes to indemnify the insured party for
patrimonial loss or damage that is suffered as a consequence of the event that was
insured against.76 Indemnity means that an insured party can only be compensated up
to the extent that he has suffered a prejudice as a result of the occurrence of the event
that was insured against.77 Accordingly, it has been contended that an insured cannot
have an insurable interest with regard to an event that the insured has not insured
against. 78 Therefore, insurable interest is employed as a yardstick for loss or damage.
The principle of indemnity has the effect that the insured is only indemnified for a loss
that they might suffer instead of gaining when they have not actually suffered a loss.79
Thus, it can be said that the principle of indemnity is closely related to the prohibition
against wagering agreements.80
In non-indemnity insurance, the requiring of insurable interest is aimed at preventing a
situation whereby insured parties have an incentive to cause the event that has been
insured against.81
2.2.3 Minimizing the incentive for an insured party to destroy the insured property The requiring of insurable interest arose out of concern that insurance created an
incentive to commit murder or destroy the subject matter of the insurance (moral
hazard).82 Therefore, insurable interest is aimed at eliminating the potential for a moral
74 (ibid.). 75 Dalby v The India & London Life-Assurance Company (1854) 15 CB 365 at 391 76 Ndungula, D. (2001:19). 77 In terms of Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380 (CA) at 397, “Only those who have an insurable interest can recover [and they can only recover] to the extent to which [the insured has suffered a loss]”. 78 Manderson t/a Hillcrest Electrical v Standard General Insurance Co Ltd 1996 (3) SA 434 (D) at 441G 79 Ndungula, D. (2001:19). 80 (ibid.). 81 Ndungula, D. (2001:20). 82 (ibid.).
15
hazard.83 A moral hazard exists in situations whereby the existence of insurance
increases the incentives for loss.84 A moral hazard can described as an insurance
contract in which the insured has a “sinister counter interest in having the [insured] life
come to an end”.85 Hence, an insurable interest exists when the insured party has an
interest in the continuation of the insured life.86
Therefore, requiring an insurable interest is based on the belief that if the insured has
no interest in the subject matter of the insurance, then they are increasingly likely to
destroy the subject matter of the insurance in an attempt to receive the proceeds from
the insurance policy.87 Thus, the requirement of insurable interest is aimed at
minimizing the incentive for an insured party to destroy the insured property.88
Consequently, the doctrine of insurable interest requires that insurance could only be
taken out by persons or entities which “had an independent interest in the continuing
existence of the subject matter”.89
83 (ibid.). 84 (ibid.). 85 Grigsby v Russell, 222 U.S. 149, 154-55 (1911) 86 (ibid.). 87 Ndungula, D. (2001:20). 88 (ibid.). 89 (ibid.).
16
CHAPTER 3: Historical development of the doctrine of insurable interest
The doctrine of insurable interest is derived from English law.90 However, it is worth
noting that initially, under English law, an insured party was not required to have an
insurable interest in the subject matter of the insurance.91 Therefore, contracts of
insurance were enforceable even if the insured lacked an insurable interest in the
subject matter of the insurance. Gambling and wagering was not prohibited under
English law.92 In actual fact, wagers were enforceable under English common law.93
Therefore, gambling and wagering used to be legally recognized and enforceable.94
However, in 1745, the English legislature promulgated the Marine Insurance Act. The
Marine Insurance Act prohibited the practice of wagering on ships (marine insurance).
The Marine Insurance Act was motivated by legislative concern that insurance policies
on the continued safety of property were subject to abuse due to the fact that such
insurance policies provided an incentive for the insured party to jeopardize the safety of
the insured property.95 For this reason, the Marine Insurance Act of 1745 prohibited any
form of wagering or gaming on British ships or cargoes.96 Therefore, in terms of the
Marine Insurance Act of 1745, any contract of waging or gaming on British ships and
cargoes was null and void.97 The Marine Insurance Act of 1745 introduced an insurable
interest requirement with regard to marine insurance in order to prevent the use of
insurance contracts to gamble or speculate upon ships and lives.98
The Marine Insurance Act of 1745 was subsequently repealed by the Marine Insurance
Act of 1906.99 The Marine Insurance Act of 1906 required that an insured must have an
90 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. 2006. Commercial Law Study Guide. Windhoek: Centre for External Studies, p84. 91 Ndungula, D. (2001:7). 92 Browne, D. 1961. MacGillivray on Insurance Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited, p351. 93 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011. 94 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:84). 95 Bennett, H. 1996. The Law of Marine Insurance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p13. 96 (ibid.). 97 (ibid.:13-14). 98 (ibid.:13). 99 (ibid.:14).
17
insurable interest in the subject matter of the contract of insurance.100 A contract of
insurance in terms of which the insured party lacks an insurable interest will be
regarded as a being a wagering agreement.101 Any wagering agreement will be
regarded as being void.102 Furthermore, in terms of the Marine Insurance (Gambling
Policies) Act of 1909, it is also an offence to enter into a contract of marine insurance if
the insured does not have an interest in “…the safe arrival of the ship in relation to
which the contract is made or in the safety or preservation of the subject-matter insured,
or a bona fide expectation of acquiring such an interest”.103 Therefore, by virtue of the
Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act of 1909, a wagering agreement is not only
void, a wagering agreement was also illegal.
Consequently, the Marine Insurance Act resulted in a situation whereby the English
judiciary became unwilling to enforce insurance contracts which related to wagering.104
Thus, it can be said that the Marine Insurance Act was the first statutory expression
which required that an insured party must have an insurable interest in order to
conclude insurance contracts with regard to a particular subject matter.105
In 1774, the prohibition against wagering later extended from marine insurance to life
insurance by virtue of the Life Assurance Act of 1774. Therefore, the Life Assurance Act
of 1774 was only applicable to life insurance.106
The Cape Colony inherited the English doctrine of insurable interest by virtue of
Ordinance 8 of 1879. Similarly, insurable interest became incorporated into the law of
the Orange Free State by virtue of Ordinance 5 of 1902.107 Thus, the doctrine of
insurable interest became part of the law of the Orange Free State and the Cape
100 Section 6(1) of the Marine Insurance Act of 1906 101 Section 4(2) of The Marine Insurance Act of 1906 102 Section 4 of the Marine Insurance Act of 1906 103 Section 1 of the Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act of 1909 104 Kosmospoulos v Constitution Insurance Co., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 2 105 Bennett, H. (1996:14). 106 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:14). 107 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011.
18
Province by virtue of the above-mentioned legislation.108 Therefore, insurable interest
became a requirement for all contracts of insurance in the Cape Colony and the Orange
Free State.109
Consequently, the South African provinces of the Cape Province and the Orange Free
State applied English insurance law with regard to fire, life and marine insurance.110
Meanwhile, the insurance contracts in the other provinces of South Africa were subject
to Roman Dutch Law.111
Roman-Dutch law was only concerned with whether the insured had the genuine
intention to insure the subject matter of the contract of insurance or whether the insured
had the intention to make a gamble.112
Therefore, there were differing insurance laws that were applicable in the various
provinces of South Africa.113 The Cape Province and the Orange Free State were
governed by English law of insurance with regard to life, fire and marine insurance.114 In
the other provinces of South Africa such as Transvaal and Natal, insurance contracts
were governed by Roman Dutch law.115 English insurance law was only applicable in
the Transvaal and Natal if the relevant English law principles were not in conflict with
Roman Dutch law.116
In terms of Proclamation 21 of 1919, the law applicable in the Cape of Good Hope
became applicable in South West Africa.117 Therefore, the doctrine of insurable interest
that was part of the law of the Cape became part of the law of South West
Africa/Namibia by virtue of Proclamation 21 of 1919.
108 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011. 109 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:84). 110 (ibid.:83). 111 (ibid.). 112 (ibid.:84). 113 Midgeley, J. (1985:466). 114 (ibid.). 115 (ibid.:467). 116 (ibid.). 117 Horn, N., & Bosl A (Eds). 2008. The Indepenedence of the Judiciary in Namibia. Windhoek: Macmillan Education Namibia, p45.
19
However, in terms of the Pre-Union Statute Revision Act 43 of 1977, the statutes that
were previously applicable in the Cape Province and the Orange Free State were
repealed.118 Section 1 of the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act (Act 43 of 1977)
repealed the statutes of the Cape Province and the Orange Free State. Therefore, from
1977 onwards, the courts in the Cape Province, the Orange Free State as well as the
courts in Namibia are no longer bound by English law of insurance.119 Thus, from 1977
onwards, we are governed by the same law of insurance (Roman Dutch law).120 Hence,
Roman-Dutch law became the only applicable common law of insurance.121
118 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:84). 119 Midgeley, J. (1985:469). 120 (ibid.:467). 121 (ibid.).
20
CHAPTER 4: English law approach regarding insurable interest The Marine Insurance Act of 1745 prohibited any form of wagering or gaming on British
ships or cargoes.122 Hence, In terms of the Marine Insurance Act of 1745, any contract
of waging or gaming on British ships and cargoes was null and void.123
The Marine Insurance Act of 1745 was subsequently repealed by the Marine Insurance
Act of 1906.124 The Marine Insurance Act of 1906 required that an insured must have an
insurable interest in the subject matter of the contract of insurance.125 A contract of
insurance in terms of which the insured party lacks an insurable interest will be
regarded as a being a wagering agreement.126 Any wagering agreement will be
regarded as being void.127 Furthermore, in terms of the Marine Insurance (Gambling
Policies) Act of 1909, it is also an offence to enter into a contract of marine insurance if
the insured does not have an interest in “…the safe arrival of the ship in relation to
which the contract is made or in the safety or preservation of the subject-matter insured,
or a bona fide expectation of acquiring such an interest”.128 Therefore, by virtue of the
Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act of 1909, a wagering agreement is not only
void, a wagering agreement is also illegal.
In 1774, the prohibition against wagering later extended from marine insurance to life
insurance by virtue of the Life Assurance Act of 1774129.
The Life Assurance Act of 1774 was aimed at preventing the practice of wagering under
the guise of insurance contracts.130 Hence, section 1 of the Life Assurance Act of 1774
provided that:
122 Midgeley, J. (1985:467). 123 Bennett, H. (1996:13-14). 124 (ibid.:14). 125 Section 6(1) of the Marine Insurance Act of 1906 126 Section 4(2) of The Marine Insurance Act of 1906 127 Section 4 of the Marine Insurance Act of 1906 128 Section 1 of the Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act of 1909 129 Life Assurance Act 1774, 14 Geo. 3, c. 48 130 Reinecke, M., & Van der Merwe, S. 1989. General Principles of Insurance. Durban: Butterworths, p82.
21
No insurance can be effected on lives or other events in which the person for whose benefit the
policy is made has no interest, or by way of wagering.131
According to the Life Assurance Act132, the requirement that there must be an insurable
interest is a peremptory provision.133 Thus, a court must mero motu regard an insurance
contract that lacks an insurable interest as being illegal and void.134 The Life Assurance
Act requires that an insurable interest must exist at the time that the insurance contract
is entered into.135 If an insurance contract is concluded in the absence of an insurable
interest by the insured, then such contract is unenforceable due to the fact that such
contract is illegal and void.136
Insurable interest must exist at the time of entering into indemnity and non-indemnity
contracts.137 Therefore, in terms of the Life Assurance Act, insurable interest is a
requirement of both indemnity and non-indemnity insurance.
Furthermore, section 3 of the Life Assurance Act of 1774138 provides that no greater
sum may be recovered than the value of the interest.139 Therefore, in terms of the Life
Assurance Act, an insured party can only be compensated up to the extent that he has
suffered a prejudice as a result of the occurrence of the event that was insured
against.140 Hence, an insured cannot have an insurable interest with regard to an event
that the insured has not insured against.141
131 Reinecke, M., & Van der Merwe, S. 1989. General Principles of Insurance. Durban: Butterworths, p81. 132 Life Assurance Act 1774, 14 Geo. 3, c. 48 133 Re London County Commercial Reinsurance Office Ltd 1922 2 Ch 67 80. 134 Gedge v Royal Exchange Assurance Corp 1900 2 QB 214. 135 Dalby v India and London Life Assurance Co (1854) 15 CB 365 (Ex Ch). 136 Havenga, P. 1994. “Life insurance contracts and the requirement of an insurable interest”. South African Journal of Mercantile Law, Volume 6 (Issue No 3): p348. 137 Reinecke, M., & Van der Merwe, S. (1989:82). 138 Life Assurance Act 1774, 14 Geo. 3, c. 48 139 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011. 140 In terms of Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380 (CA) at 397, “Only those who have an insurable interest can recover [and they can only recover] to the extent to which [the insured has suffered a loss]”. 141 Manderson t/a Hillcrest Electrical v Standard General Insurance Co Ltd 1996 (3) SA 434 (D) at 441G
22
The existence of an insurable interest can be used in order to determine the legality of
an insurance contract.142 Thus, a contract which lacks an insurable interest by the
parties will be regarded as being unlawful (illegal) and void.143 Therefore, a contract
which lacks an insurable interest will not be enforceable, not merely because the
contract amounts to a wager, the contract will also be unenforceable by virtue of the fact
that the contract is void and illegal.144
Consequently, Gordon and Getz contend that insurable interest is a prerequisite for a
valid contract of insurance.145 Therefore, according to Gordon and Getz, if there is no
insurable interest, then there is no valid contract of insurance.146 Thus, under English
law of insurance, the requirement for insurable interests is a legal requirement for the
validity of the contract.147 In order to have a valid contract of insurance, there needs to
be an insurable interest.148 Hence, in Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors of
Executors & Trust and Assurance Co149, the court held that insurable interest is a
requirement for a valid contract of insurance.
Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors of Executors & Trust and Assurance Co150:
In Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors of Executors & Trust and Assurance Co151,
the owner of farm had entered into a lease agreement with a tenant. In terms of the
lease agreement, the tenant was prohibited from removing chaff, straw or manure from
the farm.152 The farm-owner insured the by-products of the tenant’s crop (including the
chaff).153 The chaff subsequently burned down and the farm owner tried to put an
142 Reinecke, M., & Van der Merwe, S. (1989:81). 143 (ibid.). 144 (ibid.). 145 Havenga, P. 1994. “Life insurance contracts and the requirement of an insurable interest”. South African Journal of Mercantile Law, Volume 6 (Issue No 3): p347. 146 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:91). 147 Joubert W.A. (2002) The Law of South Africa, First Reissue Vol. 12 Butterwoths, Durban at 59 148 Lynco Plant Hire & Sales v Univem Versekeringsmakelaars 2002 (5) SA 85 TPA 149 Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors of Executors & Trust and Assurance Co 1921 CPD 96 150 (ibid.). 151 (ibid.). 152 (ibid.). 153 (ibid.).
23
insurance claim with the insurer.154 However, the insurer challenged the farm owner’s
claim based on the contention that farm owner lacked an insurable interest and was
thus ineligible to benefit.155
The court in Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors of Executors & Trust and
Assurance Co156 followed the English law approach to insurable interest and concluded
that insurable interest is a prerequisite for a valid insurance.157 The court stated that the
chaff would be a valuable fertilizer for the farm.158 Hence, the court concluded that the
farm owner had an insurable interest in the chaff.159
154 (ibid.). 155 (ibid.). 156 (ibid.). 157 (ibid.). 158 (ibid.). 159 (ibid.).
24
CHAPTER 5: Roman-Dutch Law approach to insurable interest
Insurable interest is a requirement of English law.160 Even though the doctrine of
insurable interest is a part of English law, insurable interest was never part of Roman-
Dutch law.161 Roman-Dutch law was only concerned with whether the insured had the
genuine intention to insure the subject matter of the contract of insurance or whether the
insured had the intention to make a gamble.162 Therefore, the intention with which
parties conclude an insurance contract is of great significance in determining whether or
not the contract in question is an insurance contract or a wagering agreement.163
According to Reinecke and van der Merwe, insurable interest is not a requirement of our
law.164 In non-indemnity insurance, insurable interest serves only to determine whether
or not the insured had the intention of entering into a contract of insurance.165 Thus,
insurable interest is not a requirement under Roman Dutch law.166
Under Roman-Dutch law, a contract of insurance is valid regardless of whether or not
the insured has an insurable interest.167 Thus, Roman-Dutch law did not require that
insurance contracts need to have an insurable interest. Therefore, under Roman-Dutch
law, the existence of an insurable interest was not necessary in order to determine the
validity of an insurance contract.168
Roman-Dutch law was more concerned with the prohibition of wagering agreements.169
Consequently, Roman-Dutch law already had a ban on wagers in an attempt to prevent
160 Steyn v AA Onderlinge Assuransie Assosiasie 1985 (4) SA 7 (T) 161 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:88). 162 (ibid.:84). 163 Havenga, P., Havenga, M., Garbers, C., Meiring, I., Schulze, W., Van der Linde, K., & Van der Merwe, T. (1995:143). 164 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:92). 165 (ibid.). 166 (ibid.:90). 167 Reinecke, M., & Van der Merwe, S. 1984. “Insurable interest and reasonable precautions: blessed be the meek (and gullible?)”. South African Law Journal, Volume No. 6 (Issue No 3): p609. 168 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011. 169 Reinecke, M., & Van der Merwe, S. (1989:81).
25
the practice of wagering under the guise of insurance contracts.170 Thus, wagering
agreements were unenforceable in terms of Roman-Dutch law.171
Insurable interest is only used in order to distinguish an enforceable insurance contract
from a wager.172 Consequently, the court should not be concerned with whether or not
the insured has an insurable interest or not.173 Instead, the court should only be
concerned with whether or not the insured party has taken a wager.174
Phillips v General Accident Insurance Co175:
In Phillips v General Accident Insurance Co176, a man had insured an engagement ring
which he had bought for his wife.177 The insurer had been aware of the fact that the ring
belonged to the insured person’s wife.178 Nevertheless, the insurer entered into the
insurance agreement with the husband and the insurer also accepted the payment of
premiums by the husband.179 The ring subsequently got lost and when the husband
tried to put an insurance claim, the insurer claimed that the husband (the insured party)
lacked an insurable interest in relation to the ring.180 However, the court concluded that
the husband did have an insurable interest in his wife’s ring.181 The court stated that the
husband had an insurable interest in the ring by virtue of the fact that he would be
financially responsible for the replacement of the ring.182 Therefore, according to the
case of Phillips v General Accident Insurance Co183, a person will have an insurable
interest in a thing if they are financially responsible for the replacement of the thing.
170 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011. 171 Joubert, W (Ed). 1988. The Law of South Africa. Durban: Butterworths, p87. 172 Steyn v AA Onderlinge Assuransie Assosiasie 1985 (4) SA 7 (T) 173 (ibid.). 174 (ibid.). 175 Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd 1983 (4) SA 652 (W) 659 A-B. 176 (ibid.). 177 (ibid.). 178 (ibid.). 179 (ibid.). 180 (ibid.). 181 (ibid.). 182 (ibid.). 183 (ibid.).
26
Furthermore, the court in Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd184
remarked that too much emphasis is placed on the doctrine of insurable interest.185
More attention should instead be focused on whether the contract amounts to a betting
or wagering agreement.186 The determination of whether or not a contract amounts to a
betting or wagering agreement should be based on surrounding circumstances such as
the intention of the parties.187 Insurable interest is only one of the factors that are used
in order to determine whether or not a contract amounts to a wager or not.188 Therefore,
one should also look at other factors in order to determine whether or not the contract in
question amounts to a wager or not.189 Thus, the intention of the parties is one of the
factors that a court must look at in order to determine whether the contract can be
classified as a wager or not.190
In the event of doubt or uncertainty as to whether or not the contract is a betting or
wagering agreement or not, then the insured should be able to receive the benefit since
the insurer has accepted the payment of premiums by the insured party.191
Pre-Union Statute Revision Act 43 of 1977:
The Pre-Union Statute Revision Act 43 of 1977 repealed the legislation that had brought
English law of insurance into our law.192 Thus, by virtue of the Pre-Union Statute Law
Revision Act, our courts are no longer bound by English legal provisions such as the
Life Assurance Act.193 Since the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act (General Law
Amendment Act) of 1977 abolished the application of the Life Assurance Act (Gambling
184 (ibid.:659 B-C). 185 (ibid.). 186 (ibid.). 187 (ibid.). 188 (ibid.). 189 (ibid.). 190 Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd 1983 (4) SA 652 (W) 659 E-H. 191 (ibid.). 192 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011. 193 Reinecke, M., & Van der Merwe, S. (1989:81).
27
Act) in terms of our law, then we should only apply Roman Dutch law.194 Consequently,
insurable interest is no longer applicable in terms of our law.
Thus, by virtue of the Pre-Union Statute Revision Act, Roman-Dutch law should be
regarded as the common law of insurance in terms of our law.195 For this reason, the
court in Mutual and Federal Co Ltd v Oudtshoorn Municipality196 stated that our law (of
insurance) is based on Roman Dutch law principles. Therefore, a contract of insurance
will be valid regardless of whether or not the insured has an insurable interest.
194 Steyn v AA Onderlinge Assuransie Assosiasie 1985 (4) SA 7 (T) 195 Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd v Oudtshoorn Municipality 1985 (1) SA 419 (A) 196 (ibid).
28
CHAPTER 6: Conclusion
6.1 Summary of key principles and ideas
An insurable interest refers to a financial or other interest that an insured person has in
the subject matter of the contract of insurance.197 Ownership of a thing is not the only
indicator of the existence of an insurable interest in a thing.198 Persons can have an
insurable interest in a thing despite the fact that such person is not the owner of the
thing.199 Additionally, an insured will have an insurable interest in a thing merely by
virtue of the fact that the insured will derive a benefit from the continued existence of the
thing.200 Thus, a person has an insurable interest in a thing if they stand to derive a
benefit from the continued existence of the thing or if they stand to suffer a prejudice by
the destruction of the thing.201
The doctrine of insurable interest is derived from English law.202 Under English law of
insurance, the requirement for insurable interests is a legal requirement for the validity
of the contract.203 In order to have a valid contract of insurance, there needs to be an
insurable interest.204 Hence, in Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors of Executors &
Trust and Assurance Co205, the court held that insurable interest is a requirement for a
valid contract of insurance.
Even though the doctrine of insurable interest is a part of English law, insurable interest
was never part of Roman-Dutch law.206 Roman-Dutch law was only concerned with
whether the insured had the genuine intention to insure the subject matter of the
197 Law, J., & Martin, E (Eds). (2006:279). 198 Reinecke, M., & Van der Merwe, S. (1989:84). 199 Lucena v Craufurd (1806) 2 Bos & PNR 269 (HL) 302; Brightside Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Zimnat Insurance Co Ltd 2003 (1) SA 318 ZHC 200 Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd 1983 (4) SA 652 (W); Brightside Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Zimnat Insurance Co Ltd 2003 (1) SA 318 ZHC 201 (ibid.). 202 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:84). 203 Joubert W.A. (2002) The Law of South Africa, First Reissue Vol. 12 Butterwoths, Durban at 59 204 Lynco Plant Hire & Sales v Univem Versekeringsmakelaars 2002 (5) SA 85 TPA 205 Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors of Executors & Trust and Assurance Co 1921 CPD 96 206 Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. (2006:88).
29
contract of insurance or whether the insured had the intention to make a gamble.207
Under Roman-Dutch law, a contract of insurance is valid regardless of whether or not
the insured has an insurable interest.208 Thus, Roman-Dutch law did not require that
insurance contracts need to have an insurable interest.
6.2 Insurable interest does not form part of our law!
6.2.1 Effect of Pre-Union Statute Revision Act 43 of 1977 and other legislation:
The Pre-Union Statute Revision Act 43 of 1977 repealed the legislation that had brought
English law of insurance into our law.209 Hence, Roman-Dutch law should be regarded
as our common law of insurance.210 Roman-Dutch law did not require that an insured
must have an insurable interest in order to enter into an insurance contract.
Consequently, insurable interest is no longer applicable in terms of our law. Therefore,
in terms of our law, a contract of insurance will be valid regardless of whether or not the
insured has an insurable interest.211 Thus, insurable interest does not form part of our
law.
There is no justification for applying English legal principles such as the doctrine of
insurable interest.212 We should instead rely on Roman-Dutch law principles regarding
insurance.213 Consequently, the courts should not be concerned with whether or not the
insured has an insurable interest or not.214 The insured should be able to receive the
benefit since the insurer has accepted the payment of premiums by the insured party.215
Therefore, an insured party who has entered into a contract of insurance should be
entitled to receive the benefit from the insurer irrespective of the existence or non-
existence of an insurable interest.
207 (ibid.:84). 208 Reinecke, M., & Van der Merwe, S. (1984:609). 209 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011. 210 Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd v Oudtshoorn Municipality 1985 (1) SA 419 (A) 211 Reinecke, M., & Van der Merwe, S. (1984:609). 212 Steyn v AA Onderlinge Assuransie Assosiasie 1985 (4) SA 7 (T) 213 (ibid.). 214 (ibid.). 215 Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd 1983 (4) SA 652 (W) 659 B-C.
30
Furthermore, it is worth noting that there is no mention of insurable interest in either the
Long-Term Insurance Act (Act 5 of 1998) or the Short-Terms Insurance Act (Act 4 of
1998). Therefore, this serves as further indication of the fact that insurable interest is not
a requirement for the validity of an insurance contract in terms of our law.
6.2.2 The need for legislative intervention
As mentioned earlier, the Pre-Union Statute Revision Act 43 of 1977 repealed the
legislation that had brought English law of insurance into our law.216 Furthermore, based
on Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd v Oudtshoorn Municipality217, Roman-Dutch
law is our common law of insurance. However, in spite of the Pre-Union Statute
Revision Act and the decision of the court in Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd v
Oudtshoorn Municipality218, there still remains confusion and uncertainty among some
as to whether the doctrine of insurable interest is a requirement of our law.
The uncertainty that exists regarding the application of the doctrine of insurable interest
can best be solved by means of legislative intervention.219 To this end, in Manderson v
Standard General220, the court remarked that the issue of insurable interest is a
complicated matter and it can only be best addressed by the legislature. Therefore,
legislative intervention is needed in order to end the reluctance of some judicial officers
to recognize the fact that insurable interest does not form part of our law.
The requirement that an insured must have an insurable interest can result in a situation
whereby an insurer can repudiate an insurance contract and refuse to make a payout in
the event that an insured party is deemed not to have an insurable interest.221 For
example, in Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors & Trust Assurance Co222 the court
216 Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011. 217 Mutual and Federal Insurance Co Ltd v Oudtshoorn Municipality 1985 (1) SA 419 218 (ibid.). 219 Manderson v Standard General 1996 (3) SA 434 (D) 220 (ibid.). 221 Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors & Trust Assurance Co 1921 CPD 96 222 (ibid.).
31
upheld an insurer’s right to repudiate an insurance contract due to an apparent lack of
an insurable interest by the insured party.
Legislative intervention which clarifies the role of insurable interest in insurance
contracts would help to protect consumers by preventing a situation whereby insured
parties have their insurance claims rejected by insurers despite the fact that the insured
party has already paid the premiums in terms of the insurance contract. Therefore,
legislative intervention would help contribute towards a legal jurisprudence in terms of
which insurers would be prevented from repudiating insurance contracts due to a lack of
an insurable interest on the part of the insured party.
Legislative action which prevents insurers from repudiating insurance contracts due to a
lack of an insurable interest on the part of the insured party would also help be in
keeping with the principle of sanctity of contract. In terms of sanctity of contract,
contracts which parties enter into must be respected and upheld.223 Accordingly, if an
insurer freely enters into a contract with an insured despite the fact that the insured
party lacks an insurable interest in the subject matter of the contract of insurance, then
such insurer should be prevented from arbitrarily resiling from such contract. As long as
the insured has complied with the terms of the contract, then the insurer should not be
entitled to withdraw from the contract and running away from its obligations.
Additionally, the insurable interest requirement constitutes an infringement on the
concept of freedom of contract.224 In terms of freedom of contract, parties should be
free to decide on the content of their insurance contracts.225 The insurable interest
requirement infringes on the ability of contracting parties to freely decide on the terms of
their contracts (insurance contracts). Therefore, legislative intervention which prevents
insurers from repudiating insurance contracts due to a lack of an insurable interest on
the part of the insured party would also help uphold the concept of freedom of contract.
223 Ndungula, D. (2001:37). 224 Awoye, O. 2009. A study of insurable interest in UK life assurance, an unpublished PhD thesis by a student at the University of Manchester, School of Law. Available at www.law.manchester.ac.uk; last accessed on 21 October 2011. 225 (ibid).
32
7. Bibliography
7.1 Articles, books and journals
Awoye, O. 2009. A study of insurable interest in UK life assurance, an unpublished PhD
thesis by a student at the University of Manchester, School of Law. Available at
www.law.manchester.ac.uk; last accessed on 21 October 2011.
Bennett, H. 1996. The Law of Marine Insurance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Browne, D. 1961. MacGillivray on Insurance Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited.
Chronis, M. Year of publication unknown. Insurable Interest: Is it still required? Available
at www.insurancegateway.co.za; last accessed on 22 October 2011.
Davis, D., & Getz, W. 1983. Gordon and Getz on the South African Law of Insurance
(3rd Edition). Cape Town: Juta & Co, Ltd.
Gibson, J. 2003. South African Mercantile and Company Law. Cape Town: Juta & Co,
Ltd.
Havenga, P. 1992. General principles of Commercial Law. Cape Town: Juta & Co, Ltd.
Havenga, P. 1994. “Life Insurance Contracts and the Requirement of an Insurable
Interest”. South African Journal of Mercantile Law, Volume No. 6 (Issue No 3): pgs 345-
352.
Horn, N., & Bosl A (Eds). 2008. The Indepenedence of the Judiciary in Namibia.
Windhoek: Macmillan Education Namibia.
Joubert, W (Ed). 1988. The Law of South Africa. Durban: Butterworths.
33
Kangueehi, K., & Hengari A. 2006. Commercial Law Study Guide. Windhoek: Centre for
External Studies.
Law, J., & Martin, E (Eds). 2006. Oxford Dictionary of Law. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Midgeley, J. 1985. Spouses and shareholders - insurably interested? South African Law
Journal, Volume No. 102 (Issue No 3): pgs 466-484.
Ndungula, D. 2001. Should insurable interest be a requirement for the validity of a life
insurance contract in Namibia, an unpublished LLB Dissertation paper by a student at
University of Namibia.
Reinecke, M., & Van Der Merwe, S. 1984. “Insurable interest and reasonable
precautions: blessed be the meek (and gullible?)”. South African Law Journal, Volume
No. 6 (Issue No 3): pgs 345-352.
Reinecke, M., & Van Der Merwe, S. 1989. General Principles of Insurance. Durban:
Butterworths.
Reinecke, M., Van Der Merwe, S., Van Niekerk, J., & Havenga, P. 2002. General
Principles of Insurance Law. Durban: LexisNexis.
Reinecke, M. 2010. Insurable Interest in the Context of Long-term Insurance. Available
at www.ombud.co.za; last accessed on 25 June 2011.
Sharrock, R. 1999. Business Transactions Law (5th Edition). Cape Town: Juta Law.
34
7.2 Table of cases
Brightside Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Zimnat Insurance Co Ltd 2003 (1) SA 318 ZHC
Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380 (CA) at 397
Dalby v India and London Life Assurance Co (1854) 15 CB 365 (Ex Ch).
Gedge v Royal Exchange Assurance Corp 1900 2 QB 214.
Grigsby v Russell, 222 U.S. 149, 154-55 (1911)
Littlejohn v Norwich Union Fire insurance Society 1905 TH 374
Lucena v Craufurd (1806) 2 Bos & PNR 269 (HL) 302
Lynco Plant Hire & Sales v Univem Versekeringsmakelaars 2002 (5) SA 85 TPA
Manderson t/a Hillcrest Electrical v Standard General Insurance Co Ltd 1996 (3) SA 434
(D)
Mutual and Federal Insurance Company v Oudtshoorn Municipality 1985 (1) SA
Petreas & Co v London Guarantee and Accident Co Ltd 1925 AD 371 at 376
Phillips v General Accident Insurance Company Ltd 1983 (4) SA 652 (W)
Refrigerated Trucking v Zive NO Aegis Joined 1996 (2) SA 361 (T),
Re London County Commercial Reinsurance Office Ltd 1922 2 Ch 67 80.
35
Steyn v AA Onderlinge Assuransie Assosiasie 1985 (4) SA 7 (T)
Steyn v Malmesbury Board of Executors of Executors & Trust and Assurance Co 1921
CPD 96
36
7.3 Table of Statutes
Cape Colony’s Ordinance 8 of 1879
Life Assurance Act of 1774, 14 Geo. 3, c. 48 Long Term Insurance Act 5 of 1998
Marine Insurance Act of 1745
Marine Insurance Act of 1906
Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act of 1909
Orange Free State’s Ordinance 5 of 1902
Pre-Union Statute Revision Act 43 of 1977
Proclamation 21 of 1919
Short-Term Insurance Act 4 of 1998